One Pill, Two Pill, Red Pill, Blue Pill
By Jeff Finkelstein
I have been writing articles, papers, and lectures for many years and one of the key things I have learned is one can never tell how many people read what you write. There may be an occasional email or passing comment from folks about how much they enjoyed it, suggestions for improvement, or suggesting you consider a career in fast food. For the most part you rarely hear anything unless you write something controversial or touch on delicate subjects.
My last article on cat herding was different. With the many emails, texts, and comments, it is clear to me that either it was a well-written article, or everyone really likes reading about cats. I prefer to think the former, but as a cat lover myself, I’m sure it is the latter. Thanks everyone for the emails, messages, and comments. It is much appreciated! No herring though…
In this issue I am going to boldly go where no cat has gone before and talk about my view of the technology life cycle. Specifically, why the Technology S-curve in its original form is no longer applicable in today’s world. I preface my following comments with the fact I have absolutely no background in business theory, no idea of the science behind business thingies, and know the square root of bugger-all about this topic. Still, I have spent a lot of time recently thinking about it and talking to a lot of very smart people to help formulate a view that I hope you find of use. Or at least entertaining.
This was not what my original topic was going to be for this issue, but after a fun week attending a most excellent SCTE Cable-Tec Expo I asked Jerry (the infamous Jerry Lundwall, president/publisher of Broadband Library) to give me some extra time to change things.
He foolishly agreed…
What is the technology S-curve?
For those unfamiliar with it, the S-curve explains how an industry, product, or business model evolves over time, at least until it reaches maturity. As the technology matures, business leaders need to make sure that there are new products in the pipeline to replace it and capture future revenue opportunities either in new products, improving existing tech, or deploying new ones. The stages of the S-curve include innovation, growth, maturity, and plateau/decline.
Note that the S-curve is not a one and done. Multiple S-curves overlap with the maturity phase also being the start of the next innovation cycle.
What’s the big deal about a technology life cycle?
As I looked around the SCTE show floor at what vendors were offering, I realized things are far more optimistic than the harbingers of doom have been predicting for the cable industry and specifically DOCSIS 4.0. If you were there you know what I mean. If not, you missed an excellent show.
We talk about technology as if it exists in its own time-space continuum. We think that when a problem is presented some smart people will create a technology that solves it, then *poof*, the technology will vanish and be replaced by the next great thing. While that does occasionally happen, there is a technology trajectory where emerging technologies change and improve over time. Even in the face of much uncertainty tech evolves along a systematic process, and we can use that process as a foundation for decision-making and competitive advantage.
This is where the Technology S-curve comes into play. The S-curve states that in the earliest stage of emerging technology trajectory investments yield few “aha” moments; the learnings are dampened by gaining new information, experimenting, and failures. For those techs who survive this process and make a difference, there is an inflection point where R&D productivity takes off and only tapers off as the tech reaches maturity.
The Technology S-curve states that successful innovative technologies require investments in creating and using those new technologies. Continuing with existing technologies in the short term offers an immediate advantage, but at the expense of long-term survival and growth, while those exploring new directions may open the way to long-term success at the expense of near-term opportunities. This creates a tension, particularly for those who are uncomfortable dealing with difficult decisions and leads to the dreaded “analysis paralysis” (hamster wheel of doom) we see ourselves stuck in these days. As was once explained to me, an executive is someone who makes a decision when all available data does not point to a clear answer.
It is this paradox which offers insight into the strategic implications of the trade-off between exploration and exploitation of technologies. When a technology is a disruptive innovation where it overtakes existing technologies in such a way that it overturns established market forces, we tend to shy away from it. In fact, that is often the very technology we need to adopt and adapt to our needs. Rather than running away from these disruptive technologies we need to consider how to keep our technology strategy coherent to disruptive ones.
The potential good is considerable for those who choose to embrace a disruptive technology. Even so, there is the inherent risk of becoming trapped in a replacement effect where success in limited testing reduces the incentive to fully explore the potential of this new technology trajectory as it disrupts the incumbent technology. This adds to the angst we feel in replacing our current favorite tech which has been so good for us. We know it needs to be replaced, but it is like replacing an old worn-out pair of slippers which have served us so well for so long.
Contradictions abound
Think about it this way. These are seemingly contradictory concepts with S-curve analysis at the level of technology trajectories taking on the performance profile of the incumbent strategy and performance, and the future potential for exploring/exploiting innovative technologies towards improving how we do things and strategic advantages of the new technologies.
For any given trajectory, you face the choice of how to balance exploration and exploitation at each moment in time, which in turn results in a different trajectory for the innovation. Think about it as how to motivate the acceptance of the disruptive innovative technology over a longer time. You need near-term rewards but still must “swing for the home run” with a long-term strategy.
For any new disruptive technology there exists a strategic choice to prioritizing learning through exploration versus the speed of transition to exploitation. Add to this decision point the difficult choice of whether to continue incremental improvements to legacy technologies. Staying with a deployed tech with small changes is a safety net for short-term improvements but does nothing getting us towards the real goal of disrupting the norm.
Red pill/blue pill
The choice was given to Neo in The Matrix to take the red pill or the blue pill representing being willing to learn a life-changing truth or staying in the happy place of ordinary reality. Disruptive technologies are similar whereby we must choose to use them along with the discomfort they bring or stay in our legacy technology world and be happy with small incremental changes.
It is not an easy decision, but it is one we must make. The sooner the better so our teams can work on the new or improving the old. Disruptive technologies are never easy as they challenge the norm, but the payback is possibly worth it. Staying the current reality is comfortable but does nothing to advance us towards the future destination.
Choose wisely,..
Jeff Finkelstein,
Chief Access Scientist,
Cox Communications
Jeff Finkelstein is the Chief Access Scientist for Cox Communications in Atlanta, Georgia. He has been a key contributor to engineering at Cox since 2002 and is an innovator of advanced technologies including proactive network maintenance, active queue management, flexible MAC architecture, DOCSIS 3.1, and DOCSIS 4.0. His current responsibilities include defining the future cable network vision and teaching innovation at Cox. Jeff has over 50 patents issued or pending. He is also a long-time member of the SCTE Chattahoochee Chapter and member of the Cable TV Pioneers class of 2022.
—
Images provided by author, Shutterstock
